© 2016, vandenhoeck & ruprecht gmbh & co. kg, … fincati the medieval revision of the ambrosian...

ISBN Print: 9783525536186 ISBN E-Book: 9783647536187 2016, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Gttingen

Mariachiara Fincati, The Medieval Revision of the Ambrosian Hexateuch

De Septuaginta Investigationes (DSI)

Edited by Anneli Aejmelaeus, Kristin De Troyer,

Wolfgang Kraus, Emanuel Tov

In Co-operation with Kai Brodersen (Erfurt, Germany), Ccile Dogniez (Paris, France),

Peter Gentry (Louisville, USA), Anna Kharanauli (Tbilisi, Georgia), Armin Lange (Wien, Austria), Alison Salvesen (Oxford, UK),

David Andrew Teeter (Cambridge, USA), Julio Trebolle (Madrid, Spain), Florian Wilk (Gttingen, Germany)

Volume 5

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht



Mariachiara Fincati

The Medieval Revision of the Ambrosian Hexateuch

Critical Editing between Septuaginta and Hebraica Veritas in MS Ambrosianus A 147 inf.

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht



With 3 figures

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: http://dnb.d-nb.de.

ISSN 2198-1140 ISBN 978-3-525-53618-6

You can find alternative editions of this book and additional material on our Website: www.v-r.de

2016, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Theaterstrae 13, D-37073 Gttingen/ Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht LLC, Bristol, CT, U. S. A.

www.v-r.de

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording,

or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Typesetting, printed and bound in Germany by Hubert & Co GmbH & Co. KG, Robert-Bosch-Breite 6, D-37079, Gttingen

Printed on non-aging paper.



Acknowledgements

This book is a translated and revised version of my PhD dissertation, defended at the Istituto Italiano di Scienze Umane in Florence in March 2012.

Thanks are due to the Ambrosian Library in Milan, which allowed me to examine such a precious manuscript as the Ambrosianus A 147 inf., and par-ticularly to Rev. Federico Gallo and Dr Stefano Serventi; to my professor Carlo Maria Mazzucchi, who first suggested the present investigation; to my supervisor Natalio Fernndez Marcos, to Nicholas Lange, and to the members of the jury (Francesco DAiuto, Riccardo Maisano, and Roberto Pintaudi) who examined my PhD thesis and made helpful remarks. Finally, I am deeply indebted to my friend and colleague Dr Barbara Crostini Lap-pin, who revised my English text, as well as to my husband Matteo Garzetti, for his support in the editorial process.

Milan, October 2014 Mariachiara Fincati



Preface

Approaching the brilliant literary production of Hellenistic Judaism, with the translation of the Bible into Greek as its best example, I have always been intrigued by the continuation and the end of this branch of Judaism.

There is no doubt that its reception was to a great extent guaranteed and transmitted by Christians. However, I would like to know what its destiny was in the Jewish tradition, beyond the witnesses that, through Christian authors, have been transmitted to us through the Hexaplaric readings in the Greek manuscripts of the Septuaginta.

In my Introduction to the Greek Versions of the Bible (Madrid, 21998) I devoted a chapter to the translations into medieval Greek and neo-Greek. However, in recent decades it has mainly been thanks to the publications of Nicholas de Lange and his team at the University of Cambridge that our knowledge in this area has increased. Through unedited sources from the Cairo Genizah and other archives, new evidence of the use of Greek by Byzantines Jews have been brought to light (Greek Jewish Texts from the Cairo Genizah, Tbingen 1996, and Jewish Reception of Greek Bible Ver-sions, Tbingen 2009).

The work by Dr Mariachiara Fincati which I present to you here belongs to those same lines of investigation. She has been working for many years on the study of the Ambrosian Hexateuch of Milan, having already pub-lished an important article: Per la storia dellEsateuco Ambrosiano A 147 inf, Aevum 83 (2009) 299339. This 5th century uncial manuscript presents some marginal corrections made by a medieval restorer (Fb) and which apparently seemed to continue in the line of the corrections of the Septua-ginta based on the Hebrew, which were started in the 2nd century by the revisions and translations of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion.

Dr Fincati has carried out an exhaustive, intelligent, and rigorous study of this Ambrosian Hexateuch. She has also successfully shown her excellent knowledge of classical and post-classical Greek, as well as of the Hebrew language and of the complicated textual history of the Septuagint. I would like to point out here the main contributions of her monograph to our knowledge of the transmission of the Greek Bible in the Byzantine Empire.

For the first time, all the marginal corrections of the Ambrosian manu-script have been examined on the basis of the original one of Milan. The examination includes a codicological and palaeographic analysis with a thor-ough investigation of all the pieces of information at our disposal.

For the first time all the marginal notes have been examined and com-pared with the Masoretic text in the context of the textual history of the Septuaginta and of the fragments of the Hexapla which are still kept. The



history of the Greek language has been taken into account, just as it appears in the ancient, medieval and Atticistic lexica. These readings have been com-pared with the Jewish-Greek texts from the Cairo Genizah.

There had been some partial studies (John J. Wevers, D. Fraenkel, C. Boyd-Taylor) on the relationship between these marginal notes and the Judeo-Greek text of the polyglot Pentateuch of Constantinople, but now, for the first time, a complete comparative study has been made of the Fb

with the Greek text of the Pentateuch of Constantinople and also with the text of Graeco-Venetus of the Marcian Library of Venice (14th century). The frequent coincidences of Fb and the Greek Pentateuch of Constantino-ple have been confirmed and the coincidences, though not so many, of these marginal notes with the text of Graeco-Venetus are surprising. Both data place the readings of Fb in the Jewish tradition and confirm and show the reception of the Greek Bible in Byzantium and in the neo-Greek of the 16th

century. However, one of the most original results consists in the fact that not all

those marginal notes can be reduced to corrections according to the Masore-tic text, both through the Hexaplaric glosses or any other kind of approxi-mation to the Hebrew. Nor can all the notes be reduced to stylistic improvements of the Greek in the sphere of the Christian tradition. The author of these glosses probably worked in an 11th century Christian envir-onment in close contact with the Jewish tradition of Byzantium. He uses different sources which cannot always be identified.

In short, we have in front of us a first-hand contribution to the studies of the Septuagint and of the Byzantine Greek, as well as to the study of the lan-guages in contact. There is evidence that the transmission of the Greek Bible has been carried out in contact with the Jewish tradition and it has also undergone other influences, both stylistic and of other kinds, from the Christian tradition.

Finally, I would like to point out that the work by Dr Fincati is a brilliant example of the best tradition of the Italian school of textual criticism in clas-sical and biblical philology.

Natalio Fernndez Marcos Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientficas, Madrid

8 Preface



Table of content

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Abbreviations and sigla . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 The manuscript . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

The medieval restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Added folios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 The Fh version of the second Tabernacle Account . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Glosses and variant readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Other annotations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Byzantine biblical philology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Constantine-Cyril . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Nicolaus-Nectarius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Codex Graecus Venetus and its author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

The Jews and the biblical text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 The Constantinople Polyglot Pentateuch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

The medieval marginalia of the Ambrosian Hexateuch: report on current research and purpose of the present work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Examination of Fb notes to the Hexateuch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Preliminary notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Genesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Exodus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

The second Tabernacle Account according to Fh version . . . . . . . . 262 Leviticus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 Deuteronomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326 Joshua . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358

Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 378 Synoptic table of readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380

Fb and Byzantine glosses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 420 Fb and the Origenian or Hexaplaric tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 420



Fb and coincidences with Graecus Venetus and Pent . . . . . . . . . . . . 421 Fb and the Jewish tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421

Other peculiarities of Fb notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422 List of demotic readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423

Features of Fb continuous texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425

Speculation about the revisor and his milieu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426 The author of the medieval revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426 Purpose and context of the medieval revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431

Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444

10 Table of content



Abbreviations and sigla1

c. = century col. = column edn = edition fol(s). = folio(s) LXX = Septuagint ms(s) = manuscript(s) MT = Masoretic Text (according to BHS edition) OG = Old Greek OT = Old Testament p(p). = page(s) s.v. = sub voce v. = verse

Talmud b. = Babylonian Talmud Tg. Neof. = Targum Neophyti Tg. Onq. = Targum Onqelos Tg. Ps.-J. = Targum Pseudo-Jonathan

Texts, Editions, Modern Studies Frequently Cited

(Full references are given in Bibliography). BHK = Biblia Hebraica BHQ = Biblia Hebraica Quinta: Deuteronomy BHS = Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Brooke/McLean = A.E. Brooke/N. McLeans critical edition of the Greek Octa-

teuch Ceriani = A.M. Ceriani, Pentateuchi et Josue quae ex prima scriptura

supersunt in cod. Ambrosiano Graeco saeculi fere 5. DCH = The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew Field = Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, ed. F. Field (2 vols. +

Auctarium et indices) HRCS = E. Hatch/H.A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and

the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books)

Joon = Grammaire de lHbreu biblique, ed. P. Joon, transl. and rev. by T. Muraoka

LSJ = Liddell/Scott/Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon NETS = The New English Translation of the Septuagint

1 According to The SBL Handbook of Style for Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies, ed. P. H. Alexander/J. F. Kutsko/J. D. Ernest/S. Decker-Lucke/D. L. Petersen (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1999), with scant divergencies.



NRSV = The HarperCollins Study Bible: The New Revised Standard Version

ODB = The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium RE = Paulys Real-Encyclopdie Walton = Biblia Sacra Polyglotta, ed. B. Walton Wevers = J.W. Wevers critical edition of the Greek Pentateuch

Series

AB = Anchor Bible ByzH = Byzantinisches Handbuch CCSG = Corpus Christianorum: Series Graeca CCSL = Corpus Christianorum: Series Latina CSCO = Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium CSEL = Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum GCS = Die griechische christliche Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte HAT = Handbuch zum Alten Testament MSU = Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens PG = Patrologia Graeca, ed. J.-P. Migne PIBA = Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association PL = Patrologia Latina, ed. J.-P. Migne SC = Sources Chrtiennes SCS = Septuagint and Cognate Studies TEG = Traditio Exegetica Graeca

Review

JQR = Jewish Quarterly Review JSS = Journal of Semitic Studies REJ = Revue des tudes Juives ZAH = Zeitschrift fr Althebraistik JTS = Journal of Theological Studies

Greek and Hebrew dictionaries (except for LSJ and DCH) are cited under the authors surname as in the list found in the Bibliography.

12 Abbreviations and sigla



Introduction

The present study focuses on the medieval stage of an ancient manuscript of the LXX, now at the Ambrosian Library in Milan with the shelfmark Ambrosianus A 147 inf (gr. 808)1. The restoration the codex underwent at the end of the eleventh century went beyond the physical replacement of material lacunae: it also involved an impressive number of annotations and editorial interventions concerning the Greek text of the Bible. Before exam-ining each of them in order to detect their purpose, I will provide a descrip-tion of the codex, detailing the restoration itself and listing later sporadic annotations. A general overview of the Christian and Jewish biblical scho-larship in Byzantium is then offered as background to the medieval work on the manuscript.

The manuscript

Codex Ambrosianus A 147 inf. is an ancient manuscript containing the first six books of the Old Greek translation of the Bible (GenesisJoshua): hence the name of Hexateuch.2 Several sheets are missing at the beginning (fol.1 starts with Gen 31:15), and at the end (fol.213 ends with Josh 12:12).3 It is given the siglum F in the critical editions of Cambridge and Gttingen.4

1 Ae. Martini/D. Bassi, Catalogus codicum graecorum Bibliothecae Ambrosianae (Milan: Hoepli, 1906; repr. Hildesheim/New York: Olms, 1978), 90405.

2 The codex is sometimes named Octateuch in literature, since the collection of eight books was a popular format of the Byzantine Bible.

3 The manuscript consists of 215 folios, but the last two belong to a different book, namely the codex Ambr. D 96 sup. (gr. 260): see C. Pasini, Smembramenti e restauri allAmbrosi-ana: frammenti del codice C 129 inf. restituiti al codice A 180 sup., Rivista di studi bizan-tini e neoellenici NS 35 (1998) 6775, on p. 73. A large and accurate description of the manuscript preceded the diplomatic edition of the majuscule text by A. M. Ceriani, Penta-teuchi et Josue quae ex prima scriptura supersunt in cod. Ambrosiano Graeco saeculi fere 5. (Monumenta sacra et profana opera Collegii doctorum Ambrosianae, 3; Milan: Bibliotheca Ambrosiana, 1864), viixxiii, which remains essential for knowledge of some marginal notes today invisible written by the first hand. I made a preliminary investigation on the codexs history in my paper Per la storia dellEsateuco Ambrosiano A 147 inf., Aevum 83 (2009) 299339. For the sake of convenience, however, I resume here the main codicological features of the manuscript.

4 The Old Testament in Greek according to the text of Codex Vaticanus, ed. A. A. Brooke/ N. McLean (4 vols., Cambridge: University Press, 19061940, repr. 2009; henceforward Brooke/McLean); Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum auctoritate Academiae Scien-



The manuscript consists of thin sheets of good quality parchment, since the original ink is not visible through to the verso. The leaves are arranged in quaternions according to Gregorys law; each sheet measures mm 325 265. Fascicle numbers are marked in Greek letters at the beginning of each fascicle ca. mm 25 above the first text-column, and sometimes also at its end, below the third (and last) column of text. The first numbering was retraced in the Middle Ages counting two fascicles less.5

Today, the dimensions of the manuscript are much smaller than the origi-nal ones: this can be argued with some precision from the evidence of a pro-truding flap on fol.4, which was preserved because it contained an addition by a medieval hand: the flap protrudes from the present margins ca. mm 10. As to the upper margin, some crosses desultorily traced in black ink from fol.53v onwards often have their vertical stroke truncated (see e.g. fols. 68v, 69v, etc.); therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the sheets had broader margins at the time when the crosses were traced.6 This fact is moreover confirmed by the long majuscule addition written in the upper margin of fol.40v: the first line of text is partially cut off because of a later trimming of the codex. The text, arranged in three columns of 35 lines each, occupies an area mm 210 wide and mm 240 high. The ruling lines are D3 of Leroy/Sau-tels repertoire.7 Each line contains five syllables on average (about 11 or 12 letters).8 The space between the columns is mm 22.

The writing is a biblical majuscule belonging to the early phase of deca-dence (approximately the beginning of the fifth century), according to the classification by Guglielmo Cavallo.9 The writing module is regular, mea-suring ca. 4 3 mm (width and height). At the beginning of a verse, a para-graphos is traced on the left,10 and letters often show a slightly larger mod-

tiarum Gottingensis editum. Pentateuchus, ed. J. W. Wevers (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 19741991; henceforward Wevers).

5 Thus, e. g., the fascicle beginning at fol. 127r is marked as according to the medieval numbering, but it is preceded by the of the ancient numbering marked on fol. 126v: see also C. M. Mazzucchi, Alcune vicende della tradizione di Cassio Dione in epoca bizan-tina, Aevum 53 (1979) 94139, on p. 95, n. 8. The first fascicle number extant today is (8th) on fol. 11r: it overwrites the original (10th) of the first numbering.

6 That is, after the Middle Ages, since fol. 53 was added during the medieval restoration (see below).

7 J. H. Sautel, Rpertoire de rglures dans les manuscrits grecs sur parchemin (Turnhout: Bre-pols, 1995).

8 This datum is approximate, because syllables can obviously consist of a varying number of letters, and especially because every biblical verse starts from a new line (with some excep-tions, since the modern verse-division going back to the 16th century scholar Sante Pagnini does not always match the ancient one).

9 G. Cavallo, Ricerche sulla maiuscola biblica (Studi e testi di papirologia 2; Firenze: Le Monnier, 1967), 73 and plate 56.

10 The paragraphos is normally a horizontal line traced beside the beginning of a verse. From fol. 88r on, either the right end of the line is prolonged in a oblique line that runs down from the right to the left, or this oblique line starts from the midpoint of the horizontal stroke. This variation also appears in codex Sinaiticus (Ceriani, Monumenta, XII).

14 Introduction



ule (mm 6 5); they are placed in ekthesis, halfway out of the justification line. At the end of the lines there is no justification, and the last letter often has a smaller module than usual; passing from one line to the next, the scribe breaks up the words into whole syllables. The scriptio continua is sometimes broken off by a space wherever a period could be placed.

The writing is similar to that of codex Colbertino-Sarravianus (Leid. Voss. gr. 4 8, Paris. gr. 17, Petropol. gr. 3), which also dates to the beginning of the fifth century and was produced in Egypt, according to Tischendorf.11

The ink is reddish-brown, whereas it is greenish in the book of Joshua (fols. 200213): these are two different inks, the second of which has eroded the parchment. According to Ceriani, the manuscript was copied by two associated scribes, the first copying the Pentateuch, the other only the book of Joshua; the quaternions, however, must have been entirely numbered by the scribe of the Pentateuch.12

On the left of some columns, Egyptian cruces monogrammaticae are found (): they occur when the biblical text contains a reference to YHWH: () or (), but also ().13 Ceriani ascribed them to the first hand, although such designs are actually typical in palaeo-Christian epi-graphs and papyri.14

The place of origin of codex Ambrosianus could therefore be Egypt, although this cannot definitely be stated; one more piece of evidence in favour of such a hypothesis is the stichometrical numbering recorded in the margins throughout the book of Deuteronomy: the mark meaning 1000 is similar to that in Chester Beatty Papyrus II (also known as P46 in New Tes-tament studies), an Egyptian manuscript dated approximately to the year 200 containing the Pauline epistles, at the end of the Letter to the Romans.15

11 A. F. C. Tischendorf, Fragmenta origenianae octateuchi editionis, in Monumenta sacra ine-dita, III (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1860), xv: see a photographic reproduction of fol. 64r in Cavallo, Ricerche, plate 50.

12 Ceriani, Monumenta, xviii. 13 See fols. 13r, col. 1, line 78: () ()() (Exod 3: 6); fol. 13v,

col. 1, line 13: () (Exod 3: 15); fol. 26r, col. 1, line 8: () (Exod 16: 29); fol. 34v, col. 2, line 22: in the latter passage, YHWH is the implied sub-ject of the sentence (Exod 24: 1).

14 Ceriani, Monumenta, xixxxi. 15 F. G. Kenyon, The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri: Descriptions and Texts of Twelve Manu-

scripts on Papyrus of the Greek Bible (16 vols.; London: Emery Walker Limited, 1933 1958), vol. 3, suppl., plate 21r; the stichometrical mark is visible on the website http:// www.lib.umich.edu/reading/Paul/stichometry.html. On the peculiar marks expressing thousands (see plate 3) see K. Ohly, Stichometrische Untersuchungen (Beihefte zum Zen-tralblatt fr Bibliothekswesen 61; Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1928, repr. Nendeln-Liechten-stein: Kraus Reprint Ltd/Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1968), 812, who gives a complete list of stichometrical marks employed in codex Ambrosianus, and V. E. Gardthausen, Grie-chische Palaeographie. Die Schrift, Unterschriften und Chronologie im Altertum und im byzantinischen Mittelalter (2 vols.; Leipzig: von Veit & Comp., 219111913), 370. Ceriani suggested that the manuscript was produced within the boundaries of Greece or at least within those of the Constantinople Patriarchate, but he deferred to a future publication his

The manuscript 15



Some marginal readings written in a smaller module than the main text are also to be ascribed to the first hand: they testify to corrections, additions and variants. Corrections admittedly quite scant are carried out by era-sure, or by writing a dot above each wrong letter. Variants are generally introduced by the sigla , (), ,16 hinting to the three translators: Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion.

According to Ceriani, some punctuation and diacritical marks such as breathings, accents and diaeresis should be ascribed to the first hand as well, although they are not always marked; they are transcribed in his diplomatic edition of the majuscule text.

There are no peculiar abbreviations in the ancient text, besides the com-mon ones employed for the nomina sacra (, when referred to God, , ). is never abbreviated in the main text, whereas it occurs tachygraphically written in marginalia, together with the abbre-viated ending -.

Orthographical mistakes are not very frequent, but some linguistic fea-tures of the text are worth noting: 1. instead of : a later variant of the classical form.17 2. instead of : the vowel lenition is widely witnessed in

Hellenistic times.18

3. instead of : the addition of a nasal epenthesis before is common in koin Greek.19

Although Tischendorf considered such features which F shares with codex Sarravianus as conclusively proving the Egyptian origin of the latter,20

they are too widespread in koin Greek to act as evidence for inferring a place of origin.

During the sixth or seventh century, a majuscule hand (Fa in critical edi-tions), wrote some minor textual variants. Some examples:

arguments for such a hypothesis; this publication should have included a complete survey of the manuscript as well as the transcription of the Byzantine marginal notes, but it never came to light. Ceriani only sent his preparatory work to Frederik Field, who drew from it for his edition of the Hexapla (the codex is named vii according to the edition by R. Holmes/J. Parson, Vetus Testamentum Graecum cum variis lectionibus (Oxford: Claren-don, 1798).

16 See, e. g., fol. 85v (Lev 18: 21), and fol. 94r (Lev 24: 19). 17 Wevers, Genesis, 485. See also F. Blass/A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Tes-

tament and Other Early Christian Literature (Cambridge, University Press/Chicago: Uni-versity Press, 1961), 1617, no. 30.4, and H. St.-J. Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Tes-tament in Greek (Cambridge: University Press, 1909; repr. Hildesheim/New York, 1978), 7879: the transition from - to - after - is attested in papyri from 22 CE onwards.

18 Blass/Debrunner, Grammar, 15, no. 29.1, and Wevers, Genesis, 4845. 19 Thackeray, Grammar, 10810 and 274: the epenthetic form was gradually abandoned from

the sixth century onwards to be replaced by the Attic . 20 Tischendorf, Fragmenta, xv.

16 Introduction



1. Deut 6:13, fol.163v: is written after in the statement ; this change is com-mon to many other witnesses (A, V, etc.) and to the OT quotation as it appears in Matthew 4:10 and Luke 4:8.

2. Exodus 5:11 (fol.16r), Fa wrote an addition which is also found in codex Coislinianus 1 (siglum M) and in several minuscule manuscripts: ; it is without parallel in MT, rather anticipating the end of v. 18, where the phrase is attested by the totality of witnesses.

Most remarkable is the long addition written in an oblique majuscule (Fa) in the upper margin of fol.40v (fig.1). It contains some verses dealing with the breastplate of the Great Priest (Exod MT28:2328). These verses are absent in the original text of the Septuagint, but were added by Origen in his Hexa-plaric edition; they are witnessed by codex Coislinianus (M), by codices belonging to the Origenian recension, by three groups of the Byzantine tra-dition (d n t),21 by a group of catena manuscripts22 and by a few other min-uscule manuscripts, as well as by Syro-Hexaplaric, Armenian, Aethiopic and Arabic versions. In the Syro-Hexaplaric edition the addition, which is not framed by metobelos, is ascribed to Theodotion.23

In the upper margin of fol.74v (Lev 12:413:4ff.), a majuscule rough hand indicated in large characters the contents of the page: . This note, written with a wide calamus and in a red-brown ink, likely points to Lev 12:6, the verse of the Law which Luke 2:24 alludes to when describing the presentation of Jesus to the Temple and the sacrifice of the two turtle-doves.24

The medieval restoration

The manuscript underwent major restoration at the end of the eleventh cen-tury: it had probably become barely legible because the ink had faded, and parts of the biblical text had been lost: the parchment had been torn and damaged in places and some leaves had fallen out.25 The first two fascicles

21 Wevers, 412. 22 Siglum C' in Wevers edition. 23 This confirms what can be read in Jerome: Ubi quid minus habetur in Graeco ab Hebraica

veritate, Origenes de translatione Theodotionis addidit et signum posuit asterisci, id est stellam: Jerome, Epistulae, 106, 7: ed. I. Hilberg (CSEL 55), 2.252. Metobelos was employed in Origenian copies in order to mark the end of an addition (introduced in turn by an asteriskos) or of a deletion (introduced by an obelos).

24 Luke 2: 24: , - .

25 Fol. 1 was already lacking the upper external quadrant (Gen 31: 21): in fact the restorer had to add the missed text between the lines of the ancient writing (this is more evident on the verso, Gen 31: 27). Similarly, fol. 22r shows a cut in the first alley, four lines from the lower

The manuscript 17



probably no longer existed, or they were no longer considered part of the codex, as shown by the medieval numbering (see above, p.14, note 5).

The original ink was retraced throughout the whole manuscript. The contrast between thick and thin strokes was completely lost in this opera-tion. At first, accents were marked with no regard to the syllabic quantity, but their position is never wrong; then a contemporary hand corrected them, and turned some koin-forms into classical usage.26

Added folios

On the same occasion fol.71 (Lev 9:1910:14) was copied, as well as a bifo-lium now lost located between the extant fols. 7 and 8 (Gen 46:647:16): on fol.72 the first three letters (), belonging to the word , were not retraced, since the whole word was written in the added sheet; the same way, the first two lines in fol.8 were not retraced and were even deleted with a horizontal line: since the deletion of this portion of verse is not due to a difference with the Hebrew text, one could infer that the text copied by the restorer in an added folio should reach the end of the verse, causing the elimination of the ancient text as a duplicate.

Fol. 45 was also added, containing Exod 30:2931:18 according to the LXX; it replaces the first sheet of the 13th (= ) quaternion,27 which used to constitute a bifolium with a lost hypothetical folio containing Exod LXX36:326 placed where the extant fol.52 now is. In the present fol.52 and the next 3 sheets, however, a peculiar version of the Tabernacle Account occurs, written in Perlschrift, following the order of the MT, which is differ-ent from the LXX in these chapters. This peculiar version, named Fh in Wevers critical edition, starts at Exod MT/LXX36:3 and stops abruptly at MT39:19 (= LXX36:26), whereas the original majuscule text today resumes on fol.56 from LXX37:10 (= MT38:12): therefore, a number of verses overlap and are extant in a double version (both LXX and Masoretic).28 Never-theless, a portion of text is missing (Exod LXX36:2640 = MT39:1931). The sharp interruption of the minuscule text on fol.55v (the last words being [] ) suggests that the ancient majuscule text used to resume from Exod LXX36:26 ([ - ] ) at the time of the

margin: the cut reaches the second column, so that a in the 34th line (Exod 14: 10) was rewritten by the restorer in a blank of the previous line; the same way the restorer had to operate on the verso (Exod 14: 17). The cut also damaged an ancient note (possibly by the first copyist), which was copied between the columns by the medieval restorer.

26 (e. g. fol. 11r: Exod 1: 19; fol. 22r: Exod 14: 11), (e. g. fol. 42r: Exod 29: 12, 13, 15), (e. g. fol. 1v: Gen 31: 33, 35).

27 According to the medieval numbering. 28 Curiously enough, the original text from fol. 56r on (Exod LXX37: 10, MT38: 12) under-

went retracement and annotations (particularly lexical notes), although this pericope was displayed in the added folios according to the MT sequence.

18 Introduction



restoration, on a sheet that was subsequently lost. That is to say, Exod LXX36:2637:10 at an earlier time used to be on a sheet now lost, which was the first of the ancient 16th fascicle (= , then i.e. 14th). Fols. 5255 con-stitute a binion.

All the added sheets (fols. 45, 5255, 71, 191, 211, and the external col-umn of 201) are made of rather thick, roughly prepared parchment: in fols. 45v and 54v signs of a poorly executed scraping are evident, since the roots of the hairs of the animal have not been removed.

On the hair side a ruling system is impressed roughly, as the vertical and horizontal lines result oblique and irregularly spaced out.29 The writing does not use them consistently: sometimes it hangs from the lines, some-times it lies on them; often it does not reach the justification lines on the right. Its module varies, as do also the interlinear space and column width, according to the length of the text to be copied, particularly on fols. 45, 52 55, 191, and 211.

The majuscule writing is employed in fol.45 and in the external column of fol.206 (Josh 6:237:1), which is now pasted on fol.201 (missing the external column as well) because of a faulty subsequent restoration. It is in black ink and upright. Its module is quite regular (ca. mm 3 3),30 though protruding from the bilinear system: some letters ( ) go over the line of writing upward, others downward (, and sometimes ), others both (, ). There is no difference in the thickness of the horizontal and ver-tical lines. Letters are separated from each other, except and , which are joined from the bottom with the following letter; sometimes are also joined together. The diphthong is usually made in a single stroke. The ratio between writing and line spacing is 1:3.

A Perlschrift written in black ink is employed at fols. 5255, 71, 191 (Deut 28:6329:14) and 211 (Josh 9:3310:37). Final and initial letters of two adjacent words are never joined together. Ligatures are the traditional ones.

On fols. 5255 the ratio between writing and line spacing is 1:2, but it increases progressively. The writing module is constant in the first three leaves (about 2 2 mm), but it increases slightly on fol.55.

In fol.191 the ratio between writing and line spacing is 1:2 on the recto, whereas it is 1:3 on the verso, as well as in fol.211.

Both in majuscule and in minuscule writing, the interlinear space contains breathings and accents, carefully written and never joined to the letters. The circumflex mainly has an angular shape; in one case only it is widely arched, as it contains the breathing (fol.45r, col. 1, r. 15). Diaeresis is employed only for the name . Abbreviations are limited to nomina sacra. Traditional

29 This is particularly evident in fol. 191. 30 But and are often larger at the beginning of a word than in the middle; often sticks

out downwards from the writing line, and it is placed in ekthesis in the last line of fol. 45r, col. 2.

The manuscript 19



brachygraphic marks are rarely used and only at the end of the line, where superimposed letters can also be found. Punctuation follows the ternary system of teleia, mese and hypostigme and is used regularly and consistent-ly.

The minuscule writing of fol.71 is similar to that of the other additions. However, modules are more uniform and the ratio between line and line spacing is constantly 1:3: such features make these pages tidier overall.

Abbreviations are much more frequent in fol.211v, where even the mod-ule of the letters becomes smaller.

The Fh version of the second Tabernacle Account

The text on fols. 5255 contains a peculiar version of the second Tabernacle Account which has no parallel elsewhere. This section of Exodus (chapters 3639) reports the construction of the Tabernacle by the Israelites according to the instructions given to Moses by YHWH (Exod 2530: 1st Tabernacle Account). The LXX translation, which is itself puzzling (the version of the 1st Tabernacle Account appears to be the work of an Alexandrian author, while the 2nd one seems to have been translated in a Palestinian milieu, as the different orientation of YHWHs dwelling shows),31 departs notably from the MT: the execution of YHWHs orders is reported more concisely than in the MT, where divine instructions match exactly their implementa-tion by the people. The difference is probably due to the fact that the LXX reveals a Hebrew text in its previous stage of writing than the Masoretic one.32 Origen addressed the problem by working out a peculiar version of the 2nd Tabernacle Account33 on the basis of the Hexapla; it is handed down

31 For a synthetic survey of the conflicting theories concerning the relationship between the two accounts of the Tabernacle, see M. L. Wade, Consistency of Translation Techniques in the Tabernacle Accounts of Exodus in the Old Greek (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2003), 49. According to J. W. Wevers, Text History of the Greek Exodus (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), 11746, the second tabernacle account (Exod B: Exod 3540) is the work of a different translator from that of Exod A (Exod 2531). As P. M. Bogaert had pointed out (Lorientation du parvis du sanctuaire dans la version grecque de lxode [Ex., 27,9 13 LXX], LAntiquit Classique 50 [1981] 7985), the translator of Exod A rendered the Hebrew phrase (towards the sea, i. e. westward from a Palestinian point of view) as (Exod 27: 12), which means northward from an Alexandrian point of view; consequently, (in front of, i. e. East) was understood as South and rendered as , and so on; differently, the translator of Exod B understood

-from a Palestinian point of view: he rendered it as , but its oppo site cardinal point became (eastward).

32 A. Aejmelaeus, Septuagintal Translation Techniques a Solution to the Problem of the Tabernacle Account, in On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays (Leu-ven: Peeters, 2007), 10721; repr. from Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings (Manche-ster 1990), eds. G. J. Brooke/B. Lindars (SCS 33; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992) 381402.

33 D. Fraenkel, Die Quellen der asterisierten Zustze im zweiten Tabernakelbericht Exod 3540, D. Fraenkel/U. Quast/J. W. Wevers (ed.), Studien zur Septuaginta (FS R. Hanhart; MSU 20; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1990) 14086.

20 Introduction



by some manuscripts belonging to the Origenian recension (the codex Sar-ravianus, some minuscule manuscripts, Aethiopic, Armenian, and Syro- Hexaplaric versions). The version appearing in fols. 5255 of the codex Ambrosianus also tends to translate the 2nd Tabernacle Account of the MT, but its numerous divergences from the Origenian version prevent us from considering the former as drawn from the latter. An examination of this peculiar translation will be displayed after the analysis of the medieval notes to the book of Exodus.

Glosses and variant readings

During the eleventh-century restoration, the biblical text was provided with a great number of glosses of various type, the focus of the present study; they sometimes even replace the original text, which is either cancelled or scraped off. In most cases, the ancient text was deleted after the process of retracing the letters within the same restoration-project. It can thus be ima-gined that a revision by a careful scholar followed a general and careless restoration of the ink only aimed at saving the ancient writing together with some glosses or variants already written by the medieval hand. Since it is impossible to distinguish different hands in the medieval restoration, the author(s)34 of both restoration and editorial work on the text is named the restorer or Fb.35

In order to introduce a variant reading, various marks are employed in the ms: and ~ are mostly common for variants or a glosses,36 while or

usually introduce additions. The ink of the glosses now appears reddish- brown or black (the same as that used in the general retracement); some-times the black ink covers, either partially or entirely, a note written in red- brown ink, and it did not always overwrite it exactly.37 It seems that the codex was used for a study on the biblical text, and possibly a revision of the Old Greek translation, enacted by drawing notes from different sources. The fact that annotations were erased, or only partially retraced, or even retraced and deleted again, testifies to repeated changes of mind on the part of the annotator(s) Fb. In some cases the Hexaplaric notes themselves added by the first copyist were retraced or even used to replace the LXX text.

34 It is impossible to state whether the work on the Hexateuch was carried out by an indivi-dual scholar or by an quipe.

35 Brooke/McLean and Wevers named Fb all minuscule hands who wrote notes on the codex. In the present study, however, Fb indicates only the medieval hand(s) of the restorer(s); the same siglum is also used for deletions, although these are recorded as Fc in Wevers appara-tus (as far as Genesis, Leviticus, and Numeri are concerned), and as Fb? in Brooke/ McLeans apparatus.

36 The marks and ~ are used indifferently, although the second occurs more frequently before lexical glosses.

37 The best example can be seen in Exod 16: 31 (fol. 26r).

The manuscript 21



Three exegetical observations two of them surely taken from Catena manuscripts were copied in the margins of the Ambrosianus at fols. 29r and 39v:38 since they deal with Christological issues, they prove that the milieu of the restoration was Christian. This is not obvious, if one considers that deletions and additions by the medieval restorer generally aim to adjust the Greek translation of the biblical text to a Hebrew Vorlage which is close to the Masoretic Text;39 such an attitude testifies to a strong interest in the Hebraica Veritas, which appears quite unusual in the Byzantine milieu, where the value of the LXX as an inspired translation had been sanctioned for a long time.

Other annotations

After the restoration (maybe in the 12th/13th century), a cursive hand added several contents-title; here the complete list is given: Lev 14:1ff. (upper margin of f. 77v): () (pro

) () .40

Lev 15:1ff. (upper margin of f. 80v): () (pro ) ()() (pro ) (), () () ().

Deut 15:21 (lower margin of f. 173v): .

Deut 16:3 (lower margin of f. 175r): . Josh 12 (lower margin of f. 213v):

. There are also some reading-instructions: , start!, (also shortened: ): fol.58r, col. 2, line 24, Exod

LXX39:14;41 fol.118v, col. 3, line 1, Num 11:24; etc.42);

38 See further, observations to Exod 19: 16 and 33: 19. I have already reported them in M. Fin-cati, Some Remarks on the Codex Ambrosianus, in M. K. H. Peters (ed.), XIV Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Helsinki, 2010 (SCS 59; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013) 42534, on p. 427, nn. 8 and 9.

39 The term Masoretic Text (MT) is used here with the usual sense of Tiberian Masoretic Text (cf. E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible [Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 32012], 24). The Hebrew text implied in some emendations by the medieval restorer is sometimes different from that of the codex Petropolitanus B19A, the most ancient complete text of the Hebrew Bible (year 1009), which is the basis for modern editions of the Biblia Hebraica (BH) from the third one (Stuttgart, 19291937) onwards: Tov, Textual Criticism, 351.

40 This sheet can be seen in plate 56 of Cavallo, Ricerche. 41 According to Wevers edition; Exod 39: 13 in Septuaginta: id est Vetus Testamentum

Graece iuxta LXX interpretes, ed. A. Rahlfs, 2nd edn by R. Hanhart (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006).

42 () appears in fol. 202v (Josh 3: 7) beside the mark , which also occurs elsewhere:

22 Introduction



()(), go on (reading) a little below! (if this is the correct reading of being written above ): fol.118v, col. 1, line 6, around Num 11:18);

the sequence of oblique strokes on the left of a canticle in Num 21:2730 (fols. 132v133r).

Possibly from a later time: , note!, written in a vertical line on the left of the text in fols.

12v (Exod 3:2), 23v (Exod 15:8, 10, 11), 26r (Exod 16:28), 34v (Exod 24:1), 97v (Lev 26:27), etc.

, seek!, written between the columns: fol.66v, col. 3, lines 2224 (Lev LXX6:38, MT7:8); fol.67v, col. 3, line 9 (Lev LXX7:21, MT7:31).

In the upper margin of fol.70r a cryptographic note appears: , , .

It must be deciphered through the key of 43 as , , .

The writing seems to date back to the 12th13th century, but it is impossible to determine its time precisely, given the absence of ligatures; moreover, the ductus seems to be hesitant, especially with regard to some letters such as and . In the list of Greek copyists by M. Vogel and V. Gardthausen the name occurs seven times, but never with the title of .44 Excluding those scribes I ruled out through palaeographical comparisons,45 the following are worth retaining as possibilities: a - of the monastery of St. Clement in Ochrid (12th c.); a - subscribing the Tetraevangelion Burdett Coutts III, 4 (13th c.); a of the Lavra Athanasiou on Mount Athos (16th c.). Three more known to us are subscribing ms Vat. gr. 799 (11th c.),46 and a owner of the manuscript Weimar, Zentralbibliothek der deutschen Klassik Q 79a, a Psalter dating to 1293.47 Finally, a is men-tioned in a document dated 1324.48

fol. 24r, col. 3, line 13 (Exod 15: 22); fol. 28v, col. 3, line 8 (Exod 19: 10); fol. 29r, col. 3, line 16 (Exod 19: 21); fol. 30v, col. 1, line 9 (Exod 20: 25); etc.

43 C. M. Mazzucchi, Ambrosianus C 122 inf. Il codice e il suo autore, Aevum 78 (2004) 41140, on p. 417.

44 M. Vogel/V. E. Gardthausen, Die griechischen Schreiber des Mittelalters und der Renais-sance (Beihefte zum Zentralblatt fr Bibliothekswesen 33; Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1909, repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1966), 335.

45 Fincati, Per la storia dellEsateuco Ambrosiano, 334. 46 Codices Vaticani Graeci, III, Codices 604866, ed. R. Devreesse (Vatican City: Bibliotheca

Vaticana, 1950), 327. 47 K. Treu, Griechische Handschriften in Weimar, Philologus 117 (1973) 11323, on

pp. 11819. 48 H. Hunger/O. Kresten, Das Register des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel (3 vols.; Vienna:

sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1981) 1.432.

The manuscript 23



In the 13th14 th centuries, an unknown hand sketched an odd pattern on fol.54r, and wrote in the lower margin of the sheet something like the begin-ning of a letter:

()() ()()

The sketch is similar to a sword with spiral decoration, its hilt lying in the middle of the lower margin and its blade in the space between the two col-umns.

An undated Mandelrosette (diameter mm 33) is drawn in black ink in the upper margin of fol.109r.

In the lower margin of fol.191v there is a large ownership note written in grey ink with a broad-head calamus: () (see fig.2). The writing module is ca. mm 11. The name is abbreviated; the genitive is written in only two strokes, as if the scribe wanted to imitate the imperial monokondylia in order to give importance to the family name (as Paupantos seems to be).49 This name /- is not otherwise known as a family name or as a toponym. The most similar name to Paupantos is the name of a scribe from Trebizond living in the second half of 14th cent., .50 It has to be observed, however, that a very similar surname, Popandonov, is still attested today in Macedonia.51

An unskilled hand performed some writing tests, using a thin-head cala-mus and black ink: the incipit of Num 32:34 is copied ( -) at the end of the first column on fol.148v. Moreover, on fol.201v the same hand copied the last five lines of the first column (added during the medieval restoration) in the blank below the text (Josh 7:1), and then wrote

[.] []

Notwithstanding the mention of the , the text is the incipit of the Gospel according to John. The inexpert writing makes the dating of this hand difficult: the hand was possibly trying to imitate the ductus of its anti-graphon. It must certainly be later than the medieval restoration.

A cursive hand possibly from the 16th century wrote some pericope-titles beginning from fol.119r (Num 11:33);52 it employed a narrow-pointed cala-

49 The family name can be added in genitive to a proper name: see, e. g., in Vogel/Gardthausen, Die griechischen Schreiber, 72.

50 E. Trapp, Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit (12 fascicles; Vienna: sterrei-chischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 19761994), 10.52, no. 23552.

51 See, e. g., Epaminonda Popandonov, Macedonian poet and director of the National Uni-versity Library St. Kliment Ohridski in Skopje from 1948 to 1951 (http://www.vbm.mk/ History.htm, consulted on the 3rd of September 2014).

52 E. g. fol. 119r, beside Num 11: 33: () (sic). The same hand wrote an end note in fol. 199v at the end of the book of Deuteronomy:

24 Introduction



mus with brown ink. The same hand pointed out the beginning of verses by little crosses, although without consistency and especially when some anno-tations of its own appear. It also inserted insignificant changes throughout the biblical text (fol.134v, Num 22:30: the syllable - of , which was written by the first copyist at the beginning of line 12 in the second column, was rewritten on the previous line in order to avoid splitting the word), it cancelled unnecessary ephelkystic , but also deleted with oblique strokes some previous notes (a note written by the medieval scholar: fol.176v, Deut 17:8; the above-mentioned cursive notes to Deuteronomy and Joshua).

Byzantine biblical philology

Through the Catena literature, and generally through the works of the Fathers of the Church, Byzantine biblical exegesis was well aware of discre-pancies between the LXX53 and the Hebrew text.54 Nevertheless, the value of the LXX as Holy Writ was not commonly brought into question in Greek Christianity. A comparison of the Hebrew Bible with the current LXX had been at an early date carried out by Origen (183/85253/4) through the Hexapla, with the primary purpose of providing Christians with an appropriate tool for disputes with the Jews.55 The synoptic exposi-tion of the Hebrew text and its Greek transliteration, beside the versions by Aquila, Symmachus, the LXX and Theodotion, had allowed a revision of the Greek text on the basis of the current Jewish Bible, i.e. the proto- Masoretic text;56 this revision, known as Origenian or Hexaplaric recension, had been published by Pamphilus (second half of the 3rd c.309) and Euse-bius (265340), its best witness being the above mentioned codex Sarravia-nus;57 however, it had not stopped the prevalence of the Old Greek. In

. The notes added by this hand are sometimes recorded by Wevers edition, and are put consistently under the siglum Fb since they are written in minuscule.

53 Although the name LXX properly refers to the Greek translation of the sole Pentateuch, it was used already in early Christianity to mean the Greek translation of the whole Old Tes-tament: E. L. Gallagher, Hebrew Scripture in Patristic Biblical Theory. Canon, Language, Text (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 114; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2012), 174.

54 Discrepancies were due to the pluriformity of the Hebrew text itself, which gained stability only at the end of the first century CE: Tov, Textual Criticism, 1745. This consonantal text is known as Proto-Masoretic; it was transmitted with high fidelity up to the time of the vocalization by the Masoretes (from 8th9th century: Tov, Textual criticism, 34).

55 Origen, Epistula ad Africanum, 9, ed. de Lange (SC 302; Paris: Cerf, 1983), 534. For an overall view of Origens Hexapla see N. Fernndez Marcos, The Septuagint in Context. Introduction to the Greek Versions of the Bible (Leiden/Boston/Kln: Brill, 2000 [Spanish original 19982]), 20422.

56 A sheet of a copy of the Hexapla from the fifth century survived and was found in the Cairo Genizah at the end of the 19th c.: Ch. Taylor, Hebrew Greek Cairo Genizah Palimp-sest from the Taylor- Schechter Collection (Cambridge: University Press, 1900), plates I-II.

57 F. Field, Origenis hexaplorum, I, xcix-ci. A Syrian translation of the Hexaplaric version,

Byzantine biblical philology 25



© 2016, vandenhoeck & ruprecht gmbh & co. kg, … fincati the medieval revision of the ambrosian...

Documents